Fantasy is just so much better than Sci Fi to me so for that reason this is a non-starter.
Film Lord of the Rings vs Star Wars (Originals)
- Thread starter AaronRedDevil
- Start date
Edit: @fingermouse says it far better than I had.
Besides, the whole point of the books, and by extension the movies, is that the battles are futile. They could win every battle and they would still lose the war, hence the importance of Frodo in all this. The battles are largely secondary to the plot.
The good guys take a total kicking in the same way Superman or Bond take a kicking, its something that needs to happen so the comeback can happen later on. Which works the first time but when you're 5 hours deep into a trilogy the effect isn't quite the same, you can see the cogs working and you already know the incoming result. The army of the dead being a great example, it's a undeafeatble army of ghosts. They are the ultimate fighting force, they can't be killed because they are already dead and you can't slow they down because they are ghosts, these feckers would destroy Arnie and Skynet with the space of a week. All the tension is gone when these guys show up.
Again I not this saying these films are terrible but just not genuinely great works of art(A part from Fellowship which is a very good movie).
Oh yeah my point about the racism was more to be with the films rather than Tolkien(I really don't know much about him). In The Return Of King it's the most noticeable, to the point where it's amazing that no one at the studio pointed this out. I can't find any Jackson interviews about it either which is odd(Be interested to hear his views on it, now many years later).
Cool so cut the run time in half and we can get on with the rest of our day. If that battles are meant to be futile why was there countless hours of them ?
They do discuss a bit in the making of documentaries and focus on the fact they tried not to make any race look like a recognisable group of real people. They rather failed I fear. The Hard were basically Carthaginian and obviously North African. Moors seems to be what they were going for. I do think it was a bit of a mis-step.
They certainly would but I don't think it's particularly clumsily sign posted and, certainly to me, it doesn't feel like a boring old "Hero Second Wind".
I think, in regard to your point regarding "if the battles were futile why have pointless hours of them" you're being a little facetious. However:
1.Because they're cool
2.Because it'd be a totally different film
3.Because the characters in the battles don't always know they're futile and in fact, in the end, they weren't: Morannon emptied Mordor allowing Frodo to get to the mountain, Pelnnor kept the Gondorian army active, the Hornburg allowed Rohan to slow Mordor down long enough for Aragorn and the green Zombies to turn up.
4.So Legolas can annoy us all by running up and killing a gargantuan elephant
I do agree that, although I like the trilogy a lot, only FOTR is a stone cold classic of cinema. It is a fabulous film and the other two a merely very good.
Oh and before anyone says it: because the Eagles would've been fecked up before they got anywhere near the mountain and it would've basically just been airmailing the ring to Sauron, amongst other reasons.
We need a crossover Hobbits in Space or something?
Why is this done? Is it a money thing?
not to derail the thread but on the topic of CGI I always think of John Carpenter’s The Thing vs the 2011(?) remake. The monster scenes in Carpenter’s were practical and awesome. In the prequel, I believe a team spent months working on practical monster scenes and then minute the decision to spam CGI was made. And it looked laughably bad.
On the topic of the thread, LOTR and it’s not even close. Can’t agree that it ages poorly visually either. The scenery is spectacular. And Jackson was incredibly loyal to the books (which was the total opposite with the Hobbit, which really annoyed me, especially the dwarf-elf love triangle...)
@Fingeredmouse makes some great points. I do think the Amon Hen battle might be the best, in much the same way that the smaller scale fights in the first Matrix movie are the best because they are the grittiest. Later battles in LOTR are spectacular cinema however. Can’t agree with the notion that there’s an absence of tension. Granted I read the books before I saw each movie so I knew what happened, but I’ve watched them all with first time viewers too. The Legolas shield skateboard is a little goofy but is also about 10 seconds long. Given the Deeping Wall has been blasted to shit, all the elves including Haldir are dead, and the defenders are on the back foot no matter what they try (legolas can’t bring down the berserker who lights the fire of orthanc; Aragorn and Gimli fight off the Uruks at the gate for a while but ultimately have to retreat). As for the Ride of the Rohirrim, it’s the greatest cavalry charge in history. A suicide charge that is maybe, just maybe, turning the tide, when big nasty turns up and kills their king.
LOTR, easily.
Stars Wars is basically the marvel of that generation isn't it? To be honest I barely remember these films.
Stars Wars is basically the marvel of that generation isn't it? To be honest I barely remember these films.
Bit of a naff comparison really. Did half the world die in the process of Bond saving it? You need to remember its high fantasy written in the thirties. I feel you are missing the entire premise of the film. You're right, they have a near undefeatable army of the undead, several heroes with supernatural abilities, the most powerful wizard in the world, and guess what? They STILL rely on an unassuming hobbit to save the world. 'Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.'
You could make that over simplification for practically any film. 'We all know Michael is going to become the Godfather, why didn't we just skip the crap and have him murder the heads of all the crime families and we could be done in 5 minutes.' It's almost as if his journey is as important as the destination?
Firstly, because the cinematography and the scenes in those battles is fecking incredible. Even now watching the Ride of the Rohirrim and Gimli blowing the horn of helm hammerhand gives me goosebumps. Secondly, a hell of a lot more happens in those battles other than 'they fight.' They go a significant way in shaping what the world will be like after the fall of Sauron. From Aragorns journey to claiming his place as king, to Bormomirs salvation, to the renewed alliance between elves and men, always the story is being progressed, the sense of doom is heightened, and the characters develop. The insular wants and needs of the Individuals who rule middle earth either change as they see the bigger picture, or those individuals die, like with the case of Denethor. It immerses you in this world where these characters band together against impossible odds, right up until the battle of the black gate.
Last edited:
which are shitter at battling...Orcs or Stormtroopers?
Stormtroopers easily. Least Orcs killed some important characters and nearly killed Frodo in Fellowship. Aragorn was close to die in the end of the last battle.
Nah SW was far more iconic.
Maybe it was down to the production problems? The original director left two years into pre-production, which Jackson said meant he had to start filming without finished scripts and storyboards. Then it was about two years after that when they decided to make it three films rather than two, which meant a lot of additional shooting. In those circumstances it was probably quicker and easier to let the CG guys carry the load rather than have longer delays setting up practical effects.
Empire Strikes Back is in first 20 movies of all time and only 2001: Space Odyssey, Alien and maybe Blade Runner looks like could be a bigger classic when it comes to sci-fi genre. Everything achieved without CGI.
I don't think Marvel movies achieved substantially more than Matrix trilogy despite being superb entertainment.
Matrix 1 was fanatastic. No Marvel movie comes anywhere near it.
I think that's the point. The Marvel movies for all the bluster and talk about empowering this and that are just big dumb summer blockbusters based on comics. Whereas things like The Matrix, Blade Runner and Star Wars actually added to the sci fi genre and helped it expand.
Next thread: Alien vs Blade Runner vs Matrix franchises.
I love first Iron Man. What a way to start again the Marvel movie franchise. Perfect cast and the movie itself didn't even required huge battle. Closest thing to sci-fi classic, imo maybe with one of the Avengers movie.
Matrix had iconic Agent Smith who at some point had even more interesting premise than Neo himself.
Sometimes It's really hard for me to choose just one movie and tell other movie is worse. There are so many aspects to discuss, different times and different approach to cinematography... It's just hard to definitely judge. LOTR was so unique which I found myself excited sometimes more about seeing the making of documentary than the actual movie itself... it had that level of immersiveness. I simply wanted to see every scene, how it was made with every detail what Peter Jackson told his actors to do.
Can you see how all of the things above that the good guys have on their side diminishes the risks involved with the main storyline, though ? I'm guessing it will be awful if the bad guys get the ring but so far the countless hours of evidence tells me basically everything thrown at the main characters is in the end managed with ease. Whats to stop Sauron getting the ring and the most powerful wizard banging out an unknown magic spell and once again saving the good guys when all else looked doomed ? The whole point of Ian Mckellen character when he returns from the dead(Thus killing the impact of his brilliant death scene in the first movie)is jumping in on the action whenever it starts to get interesting to bring it to a stand still.
How much more interesting would this scene have been if old beardy bollocks hadn't decided to come in and save the day for the millionth time, with his light bulb stick,
This scene is great for the fans and it sure does look cool but in terms of film making, it's rather boring. I don't think it's a surprise that the strongest parts of Return Of The King are the main storyline(Getting the ring into the pit of fire) and the sideline characters like Eowyn and Pippin. These characters and their stories are far more interesting than anything to do with the super hero squad and ghost armies. Also while it's clearly a brilliant line - 'Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.' It does lose something when we've sat through 6+ hours of super hero's saving the day. It's a bit like Superman saving earth from an asteroid with his giant laser beam eyes and then turning to the camera and saying well folks the real heroes are the New York City Police Department, for evacuating the city hours before hand.
The Corleone family is constantly being killed off throughout the movie. When Sonny Corleone is corned at the toll booth he doesn't pop off 20 head shots and live to tell the tale, what actually happens is he gets torn to pieces and is left as a boody corpse. When the Godfather dies in his garden he doesn't later appear as a stronger Godfather(Although I've yet to watch part 3). Throughout the film there is constant contrast between life and death(The baptism scene) and due to this the audience has a understanding of why Michael acts the way he does.
You can't go up against impossible odds when you have a ghost army and the most powerful wizard in the world. The impossible odds works in fellowship because 1)It's something you can get away with the first time round and 2)the main characters are being lead by Sean Bean(The guy who always dies in his movies), the super hero's can do their schtick all they want but the tension is still there in the film because you know something awful is just around the corner, if Sean Bean is you're team captain. The other two movies never reach the same levels of anxiety/tension.
You're right that more is happening and shaping the world after the war is over during the films but ...............I don't care. I'm not interested in the potential mental struggles of a King having to rule over people or a renewed alliance between elves and men(They've got weird pointing ears and their magic powers should only be used for the betterment of mankind - Mass slave labour producing luxury goods once a year).Now while this is most likely a issue I have with all high fantasy stuff(The good guys in high fantasy tend to be all backward feudalists who are desperately fighting to keep themselves enslaved and for all the awful murdering the evil villains do, they tend to have a more progressive society)there are still genuine moments of greatness in at the least the first film, I find later on in the series the natural issues of high fantasy are indulged and heightened rather than creatively reworked.
You're missing the whole point of LOTR. Its not only that if the bad guys get the ring its gonna be awful, even if the good guys get the ring its also gonna be awful because the ring can entice even the good ones towards the malice of Sauron. And no, not a thing is the whole saga is "managed with ease". Frodo in a sense is killed, Gandalf dies, Aragorn nearly dies twice, Helms deep gets close to ruins, King Theoden dies. The heroes may seem to be winning individual battles (Legolas and Gimli kill count etc) but as a whole the heroes literally never have the upper hand till the ring falls into the fires of Mount Doom. The only point they "managed it easy" is when the ghosts got involved.
Gandalf is not the "most powerful wizard", even Gandalf the white is easily defeated by the Witchking of Angmar who is a henchman of Sauron. Again, you are missing the point of Gandalf, he is supposed to just push the heroes in the right direction. When does he "once again saving the good guys when all else looked doomed "? All Gandalf does is his regular wizard stuff not at all close to unbeatable superhero stuff you're talking about. And again Gandalf's "resurrection" is again part of his mission. He got sent back because his mission in the middle earth was not complete.
If Gandalf hadn't been involved there, mayber Faramir would have died. But you do remember what happened right after that scene in the storyline? Conflict between Faramir and his father, leading to Faramir leading his army into sure death and sacrificing himself just to please his father. Tell me which one is interesting? And again here, Gandalf doesn't do anything more than a regular wizard stuff. Shines some light to drive away the Wraiths and the Orcs who don't like it and which has been set up a few times by that time.
Again that never happens The "superheroes" are only winning the individual battles, whereas the wars are being won by others inspired or guided by some of them. Battle of Helms deep is won by Eomer returning with his riders, the tide of Battle of Minas Tirith is turned by King Theoden and his Rohirrims and finally battle at the gates of Mordor is actually lost until the ring gets destroyed.
Managed with ease? It's pretty plain that whatever power the alliance holds is dwarfed by Sauron and the White Hand. They have no men left at the end of the trilogy. They have spent everything and Sauron's relentless machine still rolls on. I mean, that's made incredibly plain for the viewers by the time of we reach The Black Gate.
Boromir is dead, Theoden is dead, Faramir and Eowyn are critically injured, Haldir is dead. What all powerful spell is that? What incredible spells have we witnessed from Gandalf to suggest, in terms of the trilogy, that he's capable of doing that? In fact, it's explicitly stated that Gandalf is no match for Sauron. He even got his arse handed to him by one of Sauron's servants, the Witch King of Angmar. I know you're trying to find such instances to support your argument, but Peter Jackson goes to great lengths to emphasize Gandalf as being less powerful than his counterparts.
Correct, they are the best scenes. Killing off more of the main cast wouldn't change that. That's what makes it such a masterpiece. Despite having incredible battles and visual effects, it's biggest strength is it's storytelling and how that is woven seamlessly into those big action scenes.
Again, remember this was written in the 30s. This incredible modern notion that 90% of the good guys have to be die or be morally questionable for a story to be interesting wasn't in full force. It's not nuance it's pointless edginess. It's actually quite refreshing to watch a film that doesn't do this.
Save the day? At no point do they ever save the day, they just stop the rot for a time. They lose the crossing, half of their force has already died and Faramir is almost killed. In no shape or form is that a victory for the good guys. So explain to me specifically why all of them dying would have been better? What specifically does it add to the excitement, enjoyment and the advancement of the story?
You keep saying this but it simply isn't true. After EVERY battle they come out of it worse. It's the entire premise of the film that you're casting aside. Superman DOES NOT save the day here, Frodo does. Legolas could have killed another 10,000 Orcs and it wouldn't have mattered. Ultimately, strength doesn't win the war. Frodo is the antithesis of this, he is the ulikel hero. I don't know why you continue to ignore this. No matter the incredible the feats of Legolas and co., they are STILL going to lose without the Frodo. This is a key tool used to push this point.
What part of the final battle of the Black Gate suggests to you the odds are even remotely in their favour? If Frodo, a character that has almost nothing directly to do with the rest of the fellowship after the first film/book, does not succeed, then they are, with absolutely no doubt, going to all die. No amount of simplification on your part will change that. I can't stress it enough, these characters you keep comparing to superman, DO NOT SAVE THE WORLD. Your example would only make sense if the New York City Police Department went into space and stopped the source of these astroids that would eventually overwhelm Superman.
I mean, there's a 10 minute scene where the elves sail off and leave middle earth, where they literally say, 'the time of the elves is over,' and you think there's going to be a alliance between the elves and in the new age? Not to mention that the Elves actively try, over thousands of years, to remove themselves from the outside world, looking to influence it as little as possible. Rivendell, The Woodland Realm, Gondolin are all examples of that. And they are the ones that remain in Middle Earth. The rest have already left. So it's pretty odd you try to paint the elves that way. You seem to have it arse about face.
I don't want to be rude here but again and again you've demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of what the film/book is about, or even the role of the characters within it. Perhaps it's been a while since you watched it.
Last edited:
This is the one Star Wars scene that should leave a universal impact:
I got a big question mark and bad marks for writing a "what I did in the summer" essay about sleeping.
Teachers are weird people.
100% agreed!*
*terms and conditions apply**
**my definition of Trek
***~45% of TOS, 75% of TNG, 95% of DS9, 35% of VOY, Movies 1-6, nothing since 2009
Good post.
The whole point of the arc is not so much how closer Frodo is getting to Mount Doom it is the ever increasing hopelessness he is facing with Sauron's position getting stronger all the time.
It really is a dark story overall.
Have you read the Bartimaeus books? I read them before I read any leftist theory so I couldn't make the connections, but if I had to sum up the politics I'd put it as: the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartimaeus_Sequence#Setting
I removed you from my ignore list because of this post.
Well written, mate. The LOTR story is incredible when you add all the books about the history and the past of their world. It truly is a genius piece of work overall.Christ, I do know that Star wars nerds and LOTR nerds are equally fecking boring.
Sadly I haven't although I might now. I just nicked the idea from the dumpster raccoonHave you read the Bartimaeus books? I read them before I read any leftist theory so I couldn't make the connections, but if I had to sum up the politics I'd put it as: the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartimaeus_Sequence#Setting
The ending we should all want for both Start Wars and LOTR is for Palpatine and Sauron to bulldoze places like the shire and the forrest where the ewoks live and replace it will mass social housing.
Actually, Gandalf is in origin the same as Sauron. But he has set restrictions for being allowed to go to Middle-Earth and his mortal body further reduces his powers. I think his fight with the Balrog proved how far he could go even in his especially weakened state as Gandalf the Grey.
Yes, you're correct. I was just talking from the pov of the movies.
I understand. I have to be honest, I was very young when I first watched the movies, literally a kid. After reading pretty much all the available books of the franchise (in my native language, but some in English as well), I actually fully could understand and appreciate the movie adaptation, because it provided me with so much more context to the whole production.
Hopefully the supposed upcoming Amazon TV series does the books justice.
If you thought in here was bad, while I was trying to find some advice about running shoes I stumbled across some poor fecker who was asking for tips about how to breath through their nose! You would thought by 2020 people would have figured out the whole breathing process thing.
This is a joke, please don't ban me,
Last edited:
Lord of the rings. Don't even think it's close and I love Star Wars.
I got my world turned around when my brother from another mother @harshad thought that Lord of the Rings has a weak storyline.
A practical issue of necessity versus an argument about elves and shit. Gandalf stuck his magic wand up my hooter and went 'you shall not pass' clearly.
It seems the Arsenal fan in you is seeping out in this thread.
I would have been more assured if HBO was doing it as I haven't seen other series Amazon have done yet. Anyway, the Amazon series will be based on the Second Age of the Middle Earth and most likely follow the events of the Fall of Numenor. It's a huge amount of time and stories to cover and hopefully they don't mess it up.
Yes, always knowing what is quality and class. LOTR was overlong, daft and didn't really offer anything bold and new other than great use of effects.
It was written in the 1930's and it pretty much created an entire genre. But other than that, nah, nuffink.
Class personified indeed.
You take that back!
Tolkien was also an Arsenal fan.